Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
I find it very hard to believe that your software *needed* to create unintelligible filenames. And if it
did, I'd claim it needs to be fixed.
Simplicity is better than complexity.
Posted Mar 26, 2009 2:48 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
Posted Mar 26, 2009 3:40 UTC (Thu) by foom (subscriber, #14868)
If, in some alternative universe, it was already impossible to create those filenames, I have little
doubt you could still have created working software which didn't require the impossible.
Sorry I come off as unreasonable to you. *hugs*
Do you know difference between two words: "need" and "want"?
Posted Mar 26, 2009 8:41 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
you have no clue about my software or the project but you claim
to know what is correct and incorrect.
I don't have a clue. And I don't need it to know anything about your
project to know you are lying. Any project can be implemented with
exactly two filenames: "0" and "1". You'll need infinite depth of
directory structure to do so, true, but thankfully there are no practical
limitations in Linux. Is it feasible? Probably no. Is it possible? Of
course. And if we'll start with the position that your software does
not need these filenames but you current design needs these
suddenly you have much weaker argument: you are reducing complexity of your
software by increasing complexity of everyone's else's software. Is it good
trade-off? May be yes, may be no. But it's weak argument at best - no
matter what your project is and what it needs to be done.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds